[MD] Intellectual Level

[MarshaV]

On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:26 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Arlo,
> 
> OK, two as symbolic language.  I have no problem with that, I just didn't
> understand what you were talking about.
> 
> I will drop the interpretation angle too.  Sometimes it seems that I read
> Pirsig differently than others, but that is my problem.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark
> 
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> 
>> [Mark]
>> Could you give me an example of an abstract symbol that has no
>> corresponding particular experience?
>> 
>> [Arlo]
>> "Two". Or "two-ness" if you prefer.
>> 
>> 
>> Pirsig's "goal" in the MOQ was to expand the nature of rationality, not to
>> condemn it. Intellect=SOM condemns rationality ipso facto. Do you feel your
>> Intellect=SOM points us towards a better solution than Pirsig was after?
>> 
> 
> [Mark]
> No I do not believe it is SOM, SOM comes out of the intellect but does not
> represent it.  SOM is used for communication, but not for awareness.
> Intellect is also involved in awareness.  That is, what happens before
> thoughts are constructed.
> 
> IMO of course,
> Mark


Hi Mark,

Is awareness a pattern, an intellectual static pattern of value?  Not in my experience.
One may be aware of a pattern flowing through mind, but the awareness is different.
But these words are not right either, so never mind.  

Marsha

 
___